Daily newspapers, not to mention radio and television news coverage, are replete with the unfortunate accounts of crimes involving children, either as victims or witnesses. Inasmuch as the legal system mirrors society at large, an ever-increasing number of children are faced with the prospect of testifying at trials and similar legal proceedings. Indeed, in many instances, successful criminal prosecution depends wholly upon the testimony of a child and his/her ability to convey pertinent information while on the witness stand.
However, the admissibility of a child's testimony is problematical. Admissibility depends, in part, upon a child's understanding of the concept of truth, as well as whether his/her communication skills are sufficient to allow the presentation of relevant testimony.
Early concern over such testimony and the problems associated therewith resulted in numerous procedural mechanisms by which to assess or gage a child's testimony and the admissibility thereof as evidence. For instance, various jurisdictions, as a matter of legislative enactment, provide comprehensive rules for pre-trial depositions. Proceeding in this manner alleviates some concerns, but does not address others. While pre-trial deposition techniques may satisfy veracity, recollection and communication concerns, they do nothing to prepare a child for the intimidating experience of live courtroom testimony. Fear and apprehension caused by a multitude of unfamiliar faces in a strange physical surrounding often hinder, if not altogether prevent, the presentation of competent testimony.
The search for an efficient, effective means by which to introduce children to courtroom and trial procedure, meeting the requirements stated above, has been an ongoing concern. Several approaches have been used with certain success. Guided courtroom tours and video presentations provide a degree of familiarity such that useful testimony may be elicited when needed.
However, the prior art has associated with it a number of significant problems and deficiencies. Most are related to the apparatus and methods currently used and result from the unique and limited comprehension abilities of children.
One major problem is that courtroom touring is ineffective. Such a tour must be conducted when court is not in session or the courtroom is not otherwise in use. Despite explanations to the contrary, later introduction of previously unseen individuals creates an intimidation factor which impairs a child's ability to provide the most useful testimony possible.
Another related problem is that time and scheduling constraints prevent repeat demonstration and instruction. More often that not, a single courtroom tour proves insufficient by way of alleviating apprehension and concerns over testimony. A second or third tour may be unavailable. Likewise, given the case loads experienced by social service personnel, victim/witness coordinators and the like, demonstrations are often conducted during weekend and evening hours when courts are inaccessible.
Another related problem is that courtroom tours and, to a lesser extent, video demonstrations, are not presented in a setting within which a child feels most comfortable. Merely walking into a courtroom creates a barrier to the full comprehension of any accompanying explanation. Viewing a video presentation in an unfamiliar office or facility may also limit the full utility of such efforts.
Another significant problem is that child witnesses present themselves in various stages of educational and intellectual development. Whereas one demonstration technique may suffice for one, it may be beyond the comprehension of another. With video and like demonstrations, especially, adaptation to a particular child and a particular testimony context is difficult, at best.
In summary, a considerable number of drawbacks and problems exist in the art relating to visual demonstration of courtroom and trial procedure. There is a need for an improved method and means by which to elicit competent child testimony and overcome children's often complete and debilitating bewilderment concerning his/her role of providing such evidence in a courtroom proceeding.